直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

All the Expenses of the Proceedings, Just Not Expert Witness Fees

August 26, 2021

Authored and Edited by Bradley Daniel Richards; Kara A. Specht; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit found the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in civil litigations under 35 U.S.C. § 145 does not include expert witness expenses. (“Hyatt II”).  After adverse results at the USPTO, Mr. Hyatt filed a civil action in federal district court under § 145 arguing his patent applications should have been allowed.  Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Hyatt I”).  In response, the USPTO hired an expert witness and incurred expert fees. Mr. Hyatt prevailed on his claim and was awarded attorney’s fees as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); the USPTO appealed. On appeal in Hyatt I, the Federal Circuit reversed.  Based on this reversal, the USPTO moved to recover its expert witness fees under the “[a]ll expenses” provision of § 145. Its motion was denied, and the USPTO appealed again.

In this appeal, the Court determined that the “[a]ll expenses” language of § 145 did not explicitly and specifically include expert witness fees and denied the USPTO an award of its expert fees.  Hyatt II at *4.  The Court heavily relied on the recent Supreme Court decision, Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 365 (2019), which outlined the longstanding American Rule presumption against fee-shifting without “explicit and specific” Congressional intent to the contrary, noting the “high bar” of this presumption.  Hyatt II at *6-7.  The Court found no such “explicit and specific” indication in § 145 or its legislative history. The USPTO argued 1) that district courts across the country have included expert witness fees in § 145 cases (Hyatt II at *11-13, 17); and 2) that § 145 has been reenacted with the same language, even after Congress witnessed the widespread district court practice of expert witness fee inclusion (Hyatt II at *11-13).  But the Court found the USPTO’s arguments were not persuasive enough to overcome the “high bar,” absent an “explicit and specific” intent by Congress to allow shifting of expert witness fees.

Tags

35 USC § 145, fee shifting, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kara A. Specht
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6481
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Seminar

IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts

May 15, 2026

Taipei

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP